Argument7

yorkerjasterUID: 2458950

限时写的

Groundingon the assumption that Ann Green will protect the environment,supposing that Frank Braun did not help preserve the environment bysupporting  the evidence contributed by air pollution, the arguercomes into conclusion that Ann Green will solve the environmentalproblems if he is selected. However, the conclusion is unwarranteddue to three flaws behind the conclusion. I will discuss each ofthere flaws in turn.
Thethreshold problem is that the arguer assumes that Ann Green will takesome measures to protect the environment due to he is a member of theGood Earth Coalition. However, the arguer ignores the other membersin Clearview town council who may be against protecting theenvironment due to sacrificing  economy.  Moreover, Ann Green can notgive a balance between the environment and the economy because thereis no information to support Ann Green will place an emphasis onenvironmental issues. If the  arguer provides such evidence rulingout  these and other alternative condition the assumption would bemore persuasive.
Thesecond flaw that obscures the logic of this argument is about theassumption that Frank Braun is unwilling to  take some action topreserve the environment. What about Frank Braun's suggestionrejected by the current mayoral or other council members? In thecase, if Frank Braun becomes a mayoral, he will take some action toprotect the environment. Without ruling out such case, the statementtend to be undermined.
Thelast but not least important, the evidences that indicated the airpollution increased, is questionable. The arguer presumes thatfactories will lead to air pollution without any information thatconfirms the relationship. How about the sustainable factories whichhelp to reduce the air  pollution. On the other hand, the rate ofpatients with respiratory can not directly contribute to airpollution.  Some virus may cause the high rate of expropriator.Hence, Lack of  compelling extra information ruling out these factorsweakens the statement.
Thearguer must explain supply additional data to exclude the factorsmentioned above in order to reach the conclusion.

showkidUID: 2427308

Grounding on the assumption that Ann Green will protect the environment, supposing that Frank Braun did not help preserve the environment by supporting the evidence contributed by air pollution, the arguer comes into conclusion that Ann Green will solve the environmental problems if he is selected. However, the conclusion is unwarranted due to three flaws behind the conclusion. I will discuss each of (there) three flaws in turn.

The threshold problem is that the arguer assumes that Ann Green will take some measures to protect the environment due to he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. However, the arguer ignores the other members in Clear view town council who may be against protecting the environment due to sacrificing economy.  Moreover, Ann Green can not give a balance between the environment and the economy because there is no information to support Ann Green will place an emphasis on environmental issues. If the arguer provides such evidence ruling out  these and other alternative condition the assumption would be more persuasive. (整体感觉，展开不够详尽，这点我感觉很重要，看A的范文高分的展开是非常非常细微的。此外，此段你主要是想批驳的TS事项批驳AG不一定会采取保护环境的措施。但是后面的第一个展开却说，AG人的措施可能遭到反对。是否应当，先说AG人也许根本就不关心环境。然后，即使他关心环境，也不一定会采取保护环境的措施，诸如：要平衡经济啊等等。而后，即使他采取保护环境的措施，也不一定可以通过。因为，议会反对啊等等。)

The second flaw that obscures the logic of this argument is about the assumption that Frank Braun is unwilling to take some action to preserve the environment. What about Frank Braun's suggestion rejected by the current mayoral or other council members? In the case, if Frank Braun becomes a mayoral （这是一个形容词..）, he will take some action to protect the environment. Without ruling out such case, the statement tend to be undermined. （展开不足~）

The last but not least important, the evidences, that indicated the air pollution increased, is questionable. The arguer presumes that factories will lead to air pollution without any information that confirms the relationship. （How）What about the sustainable factories which are helpful to reduce the air pollution.(这句话完全可以换一种表达方式~) On the other hand, the rate of patients with respiratory can not directly contribute to air pollution.  Some virus may cause the high rate of expropriator. Hence, Lack of compelling extra information ruling out these factors weakens the statement. （展开不足~）

The arguer must explain supply additional data to exclude the factors mentioned above in order to reach the conclusion.
建议：、
1、
TS是否更加直接点要好点，你的TS是这样的：他某某个推论有问题。但是如果改为，我们不能从…得到….是不是更有力点？比如第一段的改为：we cannot infer AG will take some measures to protect the environment from the fact that he is a member of the GEC.)
2、
展开很重要，感觉这一块做的不好。也许是限时的原因吧。
3、
你采取的批判顺序是并排顺序的，本无可厚非。不够，这篇文章用递进更能体现出作者的逻辑，似乎更好点吧。

不当之处请见谅~

showkidUID: 2427308

顺带附上我的分析吧，希望对你有用~

"(结论1)In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition(前提1), rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council (前提2), because the current members are not protecting our environment(推论1). For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses (前提3). If we elect Ann Green (前提4), the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved(推论2)."

逻辑链：
前提3 推 推论1 （隐含推论：推论1 推
FB 也不保护环境）
前提1和4 推 推论2
推论1 推论2 得出结论

错误：
一、前提 到 中间结论：
a)
前提3 推 推论1文中提到的工厂数量翻了一番、污水水平增加了25%等环境恶化的现象并不能说明C市的市委成员没有去保护环境。或许尽管市委成员尝试去保护环境，但是由于诸多不可抗拒因素：地理环境、新一年的自然灾害等等。
b)
隐含推论 ：并不能说FB所在的市委不保护环境，就以此推论FB本人也不保护环境，以偏概全。市委决定是一个团体做出来的，并不能代表每个人的想法。
c)
前提1和4 推 推论2 ：不能通过AG人是一个环保组织的成员就推论，如果选了他当市长，该市的环境问题将会被解决。比如，AG人不一定会把致力于保护环境；也可能即使致力于保护环境，也可能因为其他非人力因素而导致环境问题无法解决。
二、推论1 推论2 得出结论：作者期望通过实例来证明，AG人可以解决该市的环境问题，而FB人不能，所以大家应该选AG。作者把可不可以解决该市的环境问题作为了选择市长的唯一标准，是极其不合理的。没有证据表明，该市的主要问题是环境问题，况且选举市长应该考虑诸多方面的因素，如领导协调能力、提高该市经济增长、公共设施和社会福利事业的重视程度等等。